1) Read the actual article. There will still be a ban for 12 months after having sex with a man, not no ban at all.

2) Stop applying US statistics to a UK issue.

3) According to the article, the risk of not detecting HIV infection after "a 12-month deferral was equivalent to permanent deferral". That's why the rules have changed. Because it makes no difference to the risk. So I'm all for it.

I see your point, but in fairness there is also a 12 month ban on anybody (male, female, straight, gay) who has had sex in a high-risk HIV country. Perhaps medicine will soon tell us that 12 months is too long a time, and it would be great if it did because then we know we're making progress, but until then this is at least a big step towards equality.

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV and are the only risk group in which new HIV infections have been increasing steadily since the early 1990s. In 2006, MSM accounted for more than half (53%) of all new HIV infections in the United States, and MSM with a history of injection drug use (MSM-IDU) accounted for an additional 4% of new infections. At the end of 2006, more than half (53%) of all people living with HIV in the United States were MSM or MSM-IDU. Since the beginning of the US epidemic, MSM have consistently represented the largest percentage of persons diagnosed with AIDS and persons with an AIDS diagnosis who have died.

In 2006, more than 30,000 MSM and MSM-IDU were newly infected with HIV.

Among all MSM, whites accounted for nearly half (46%) of new HIV infections in 2006. The largest number of new infections among white MSM occurred in those aged 30–39 years, followed by those aged 40–49 years.

Among all black MSM, there were more new HIV infections (52%) among young black MSM (aged 13–29 years) than any other racial or ethnic age group of MSM in 2006. The number of new infections among young black MSM was nearly twice that of young white MSM and more than twice that of young Hispanic/Latino MSM.

Among all Hispanic/Latino MSM in 2006, the largest number of new infections (43%) occurred in the youngest age group (13–29 years), though a substantial number of new HIV infections (35%) were among those aged 30–39 years.

HIV and AIDS Diagnoses and Deaths
A recent CDC study found that in 2008 one in five (19%) MSM in 21 major US cities were infected with HIV, and nearly half (44%) were unaware of their infection. In this study, 28% of black MSM were HIV-infected, compared to 18% of Hispanic/Latino MSM and 16% of white MSM. Other racial/ethnic groups of MSM also have high numbers of HIV infections, including American Indian/Alaska Native MSM (20%) and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander MSM (18%).

In 2007, MSM were 44 to 86 times as likely to be diagnosed with HIV compared with other men, and 40 to 77 times as likely as women.

From 2005–2008, estimated diagnoses of HIV infection increased approximately 17% among MSM. This increase was likely due to a combination of factors: increases in new infections, increased testing, and diagnosis earlier in the course of infection; it may also have been due to uncertainty in statistical models.

In 2008, an estimated 17,940 MSM were diagnosed with AIDS in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the US dependent areas—an increase of 6% since 2005.

By the end of 2007, an estimated 282,542 MSM with an AIDS diagnosis had died in the United States and 5 dependent areas.

To put that into perspective, a mere 2% of the US population accounts for 57% of all HIV cases in the country. Also, the rate of spread of STDs and the prevalence of STDs is much higher among MSMs.

The percentage of MSMs with other STDs such as Syphilis and Gonorrhea is also high.

The rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM is more than 46 times that of other men and more than 71 times that of women, the analysis says. The range was 91-173 cases per 100,000 MSM vs. 2 per 100,000 other men and 1 per 100,000 women.

thank you so much for doing a bit of basic research. I feel like the general feeling of this thread is one of another inalienable right being taken away from gays because the system doesn't like them, rather than a non-ideal but probably effective solution to a real problem. Given the catastrophic consequences of having HIV-infected blood in the system, this seems like a prudent measure to take, although again it's not an ideal one.

I know everyone likes to make a civil rights case out of this stuff, but there's a very good reason why they prefer not to take the blood of gay men. It's the same reason why they ask you all sorts of questions before you can give blood: Are you sick, or have you been sick recently? Have you traveled outisde of the US in the past 3 years, if so, where? Have you gotten a tattoo in the past 6 months? etc etc.

The point is not to discriminate against your sexual orientation, it's to screen out people who have a higher propensity for diseases so they don't have to waste their time with bad blood. So if you're at an alarmingly high risk for AIDS, or if you've traveled to a country which has an alert on it, or whatever the case may be, they'll tell you no.

This is true, but given today's testing capabilities a lifetime ban does not make sense. If a guy has unprotected sex with a prostitute he can donate 12 months later.

If a gay man had protected sex with one man in 1983 and then became celibate after joining the priesthood he would still be banned from donating today. How does that make sense to you, even from a statistical standpoint? It should screen for risky behavior with the understanding of today's screening capabilities.

Came here to say this and glad someone had the stones to do it (and be mildly upvoted). It's not a subjective thing. Its a demographic that accounts for an incredibly disproportionate amount of HIV infections and one of the few that are growing. It's not about "gay rights." Or civil rights. Its a completely optional donation.

Incidentally, though, the fact that it's being finally modified so that it's not lifetime is a step in the right direction. I'll finally be able to give blood, at least. ... Though knowing my luck I'll probably have that super common blood type that nobody wants or needs because there's so much of it. :< Forever a non-donor.

The thing I don't get is.... I know I don't have HIV and my partner doesnt have HIV -- we've had blood tests throughout our lives. I'm monogamous. How can I pose more of a threat than a straight person who sleeps around?

You don't however we can't afford to hire a private detective to follow you around for 6-12 months to confirm you didn't lie because you're embarrassed about your self control issues.

The CDC research linked numerous times here shows that gay males have an incredibly high rate of unknown infection - 1 in 5. Considering the ramifications of tainted blood making it into the system, perhaps you can deal with this tiny inconvenience and insult to your sensibilities in order to help not kill people in the future.

it wouldn't be to follow the donor around as they don't check if your honest saying have you had sex or have you been to africa. But the blood service know that the donor can never 100% know if their partner is faithful (ie donor does not have a private det. following their partner)

but then again the question for females is "have you slept with a man (in last 12 months) who has slept with a man?"

More than 8,000 self-identifying gay and bisexual men (or, as the researchers call them, MSM, for men who have sex with men) were tested by CDC workers in the 21 American cities with the highest infection rates.

and then:

The highest absolute number of infections occurred in white MSM, primarily those between the ages of 30 to 39.

Now, from my times in gay bars and interacting (but not having sex with) with guys of that age, this doesn't surprise me.

First, let me point out that I'm in england, and the situation may be very different, but guys from that generation were growing up at a very homophobic time. They largely told me miserable stories about how they were hiding their sexuality, were locked in depression, and had to hold clandestine meetings with other depressed gay guys.

They took drugs, and had sex, because it wasn't as if they could just hop online and fap. they needed some form of sexual release, and drink and drugs played a big part in the culture. If you're doing drugs and sharing needles, you're bound to catch HIV from somebody.

So what the researchers have done is find " 8,000 self-identifying gay and bisexual men" -- i.e. men who are most likely to have engaged in sex and whatnot, and can be bothered to have a test. Seeing as you presumably have to pay for blood tests in america, these are guys who have no doubt seen there was a blood test going on and thought "i should get checked out..."

These were also the "21 American cities with the highest infection rates."

So they've gone into a hotbed of HIV, and found gay people who want blood tests for HIV... no shit a lot of them will have HIV and that the highest rates of infection were in the age group who had to engage in sex in secret.

There's no mention of white males aged 16-29 who will have grown up in a much more tolerant time where they can be as gay as they like without much fear of reprisal. Hell, any time I pass a gay bar these days, it's all the older generation, while the younger guys are socialising in the same bars as the straight kids.

The culture has changed immeasurably, and unless your parents are HIV carriers, youre not likely to develop HIV naturally, so you have to be doing it with older gay guys or sharing needles. Well, it doesn't matter what sexuality you are if you're a drug user, and it's going to be increasingly harder for the older gay generation to get laid with the youngsters, so that issue is slowly but surely dying out.

I'm not bothered whether I can donate blood, but I find it intriguing how there's still a perception that gay guys all go out, share needles and fuck with reckless abandon.

Yes, in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and early 90s, when they needed a release and being gay in public would ruin your life. Not now.

Of course, the whole thing is bogus, because I could go and give blood today if I wanted. I wouldn't have to declare being gay, and I already know my blood is fine. They'd check my blood then give it to somebody if it met the stringent requirements. They'd think it was just another straight dose of blood and be on their merry way.

That I could then go and donate blood again, but this time say I'm gay and have had sex recently and have that blood rejected, the same blood that would pass all the tests, is just silly really.

I mean, why have a policy when you can just lie and invalidate it, and nobody would ever know? That's why they test it so much, because there's no certainty that straight people won't have HIV either.

Based on statistics, it's not done case by case. I'm not sure why, maybe we don't have the resources to do that. The law doesn't say anything about you personally but I realize it sucks to be thrown in a category like that.

Why is it not possible to introduce a system through which every donor's individual level of risk is assessed as they have done in Italy, Latvia and Spain?

SaBTO's review concluded that there is insufficient evidence available to be able to determine the impact on blood safety of such a system. Any changes made to blood donation policies must be evidence based. It is also not certain that all people could objectively assess their own level of risk.

The review also found that the introduction of extensive donor questions regarding sexual behaviour could lead to a loss of existing donors who would be likely to find the process intrusive, potentially impacting upon the sufficiency of the blood supply. The Blood Services are therefore required to follow deferral rules that estimate the statistical risk of certain groups based on behaviour (e.g. anal or oral sex between men).

It would be prescient to apply a similar year-long ban to all sexually active, non-mongamous people. I live with a girl who gives so many BJs throughout the week to various men ("it's okay, I won't get preggers, and it makes them happy"), I won't let her borrow my lipstick, let alone coming into contact with her bodily fluids. . . I'm just saying, you can't count on the standard 6-month window for exhibiting viral antibodies.

As a British man who was born in 1993, meaning I have spent more than 3 months in the UK between 1980 and 1996, I am banned from giving blood in most other countries. Do I feel this is a case of discrimination? No because, having been in the UK between those dates I have a much higher chance of having contracted vCJD.

You could argue that this ban needed to be repealed, because some British people are vegetarians and are therefore at a much lower risk of having contracted vCJD. But the fact is that people who spent more than 3 months in Britain between 1980 and 1993 make up a small percentage of the population in most other countries and the act of allowing them to donate would increase the risk much more than increasing the blood supply.

The disparity of frequency of transmission between anal-receptive sex vs vaginal receptive sex is something around an order of magnitude or two more. It's the main reason why MSMs have been hit so hard by AIDS.

Gay and bisexual men remain the population most heavily affected by HIV in the United States. CDC estimates MSM represent approximately 2% of the US population, but accounted for more than 50% of all new HIV infections annually from 2006 to 2009 –56% in 2006 (27,000), 58% in 2007 (32,300), 56% in 2008 (26,900) and 61% (29,300) in 2009.

So why not just ask if a person, gay or straight, has had receptive anal sex? Another risk factor in HIV transmission is presence of STDs. Basically anything that can create a sore (syphilis in particular) jacks up transmission rates by yet another magnitude or two. STDs among MSMs are particularly high compared to the general population.

Notifiable disease surveillance data on syphilis and data from GISP suggest that some STDs in MSM, including men who have sex with both women and men, are increasing. Because STDs and the behaviors associated with acquiring them increase the likelihood of acquiring and transmitting HIV infection, the rise in STDs among MSM may be associated with an increase in HIV diagnoses among MSM.
In 2009, MSM accounted for 62% of all P&S syphilis cases in the United States.

Current screening procedure is using two tests, one to check for anti-HIV antibodies as well as a test for HIV RNA (or DNA depending on the test). The antibody test has about a month window and the DNA/RNA test has about a two week window where they cannot detect HIV infection at all. That's where most of the concern is. I think that the reason the ban is 12 months rather than 1 month is just to make the question idiot proof.

please do me a favor and never quote that number again. at least not without being fully aware of the context.

the 1 in 5 number came from a study done by the CDC and it is only applicable to a very specific group within the gay community.

first of all, it was done in cities KNOWN to have a high prevalence of HIV.

second, it was done with only a specific group within those cities. it focused on men who frequented gay clubs and bars, which draw a culture of casual sex that doesn't permeate the gay community as a whole.

the study purposely done to find the highest numbers, and it was stated in the link above "the results are not representative of all MSM" (emphasis added).

As both a university research student of retroviral drugs, and a homogay, I can confirm without a doubt, it would be safer to just keep that ban up. Besides, blood medicine is so dirty and grungy, patients shouldn't suffer because surgeons are incompetent in bloodless medicine.

According to the CDC, at the end of '07 African Americans accounted for almost half of all the HIV infections in the US-- that statistic includes gay and straight blacks. It goes on to say that 1 in 16 black men and 1 in 32 black women will be infected with aids in their lifetime. From a racial perspective, blacks bear a disproportionate share of all aids diagnoses and deaths in our country.

And yet there's no restrictions on whether or not black people can donate blood. Why single out one high-risk group and not another? Besides the fact that it's no longer socially acceptable to discriminate against black people, whereas with gays it's A-OK.

you can't look at which group makes up a majority of infections, rather which group is at higher chance for infection within the group. For example, there are more blacks in the country than gays. The percentage of infected within the gay population is higher than the percentage of infected within the black population.

I agree, but not because I'm against gays donating blood-- it's because if the Red Cross is going to enforce such stringent standards on the quality of the blood supply, then they need to enforce them equally. The fact that black people are allowed to donate blood tells me that the current ban on gays donating is based less on science and more on deep-rooted fears.

Ahh. In that case, I have a question. HIV can take up to 6 months to show up in the blood to be tested. If they take a sample that has HIV but it isn't visible at the time it is taken and hold it for 6 months, will it test positive later on? If so, why don't they just hold blood donated by people more likely to have HIV for 6 months before using them? Or does it sort of expire by then?

Question though, do you know if someone donates blood and it comes back negative positive (I'm a moron), if they alert the person who donated the blood? Do they get your contact info from you? I've never donated before.

Why let people give blood if they aren't tested at all? You solve the real problem of getting AIDS in donated blood and the "problem" of discriminating against blacks and gays if you would only require someone to have an HIV test before they can donate. At the very least high-risk groups should be required to test first.

There aren't enough people donating blood as it is; the Red Cross announced in June that they're facing a critical blood shortage. Getting people to donate means making the process as simple as possible, and mandatory HIV testing would be an extra layer of hassle most people wouldn't stand for.

That alone wouldn't work. Testing can only detect the virus at least 6 months (I think) after infection. So you would have to stop participating in high risk activities for at least 6 months and then get a test, before being able to donate.

Actually people that use illicit intravenous drugs are banned for life. I agree with the rest though. There's no reason that someone who has abstained from sex for a year or two should be banned from donating. It also bothers the hell out of me that someone could have unprotected anal sex with a prostitute and donate a year later, but a married gay man in a monogamous relationship (using condoms) can't donate. Are you seriously going to tell me that statistically the gay guy is more dangerous? The criteria should actually screen for dangerous behavior in realistic ways.

I don't know if this is the reasoning for sure or not, but my guess would be that black people are not excluded for three main reasons.

According to a quick wiki search, 12% of the US identify as African American while 4% identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual. So that's (at least) 3 times more of the population that would be excluded.

Also, since a greater percentage of the population would fall under the category of African American, while it still does make it a high risk category since only 12% would account for 50%, it's not nearly as high risk as 4% accounting for 50%(According to CDC as well).

And honestly the biggest reason is probably the logistics of it. Race is a lot harder to qualify than sexual activity*. What 'percentage' black would someone have to be to be excluded etc. 100% anything is hard to find in the US (and even calling someone 100% something is kind of dumb anyway since race itself is more of a subjective classification).

And honestly the biggest reason is probably the logistics of it. Race is a lot harder to qualify than sexual activity*.

I think that's almost dead wrong. Plenty of "down low" black people have tons of gay sex and identify as straight. Sexuality is commonly dichotomized--gay or straight--when research shows the reality is a lot more fluid.

In contrast, most people have identified strongly with their race and ethnicity since a very young age, it changes less during your lifetime, and it is probably less common to intentionally lie or otherwise misrepresent your race.

The better answer is that it sounds like (from your numbers) gay people have an infection rate almost three times that of black people. The population's size or logistic implications are both morally abhorrent reasons to discriminate one and not the other. I don't support either reason nor do I think either has had much influence on policy.

...because the amount of African American's that actually donate is very low, in fact its the lowest sub-population of donors. Statistically a homosexual is more likely to walk into a bank and have HIV than an African American.

A good point. But under the current policy more blacks are donating than gays simply because gays* can't* donate. Even if they don't donate often, I'd think that would automatically make them the highest-risk donation group.

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV and are the only risk group in which new HIV infections have been increasing steadily since the early 1990s. In 2006, MSM accounted for more than half (53%) of all new HIV infections in the United States, and MSM with a history of injection drug use (MSM-IDU) accounted for an additional 4% of new infections. At the end of 2006, more than half (53%) of all people living with HIV in the United States were MSM or MSM-IDU. Since the beginning of the US epidemic, MSM have consistently represented the largest percentage of persons diagnosed with AIDS and persons with an AIDS diagnosis who have died.
In 2006, more than 30,000 MSM and MSM-IDU were newly infected with HIV.
Among all MSM, whites accounted for nearly half (46%) of new HIV infections in 2006. The largest number of new infections among white MSM occurred in those aged 30–39 years, followed by those aged 40–49 years.
Among all black MSM, there were more new HIV infections (52%) among young black MSM (aged 13–29 years) than any other racial or ethnic age group of MSM in 2006. The number of new infections among young black MSM was nearly twice that of young white MSM and more than twice that of young Hispanic/Latino MSM.

Hey! Quit abusing statistics! Your sample size (African Americans) is 12% of the U.S population, while the sample size in question (men who have sex with men) is less than 4% of the population. Reading this report(warning:pdf!) you can see that the "med who have sex with men" group is still the, by far, highest risk group with 1 in 5 people from this group being HIV positive. This means the group "Men who have sex with men" is 3 times more likely to be HIV positive than your group "African American Men."

please do me a favor and never quote that number again. at least not without being fully aware of the context.

the 1 in 5 number came from a study done by the CDC and it is only applicable to a very specific group within the gay community.

first of all, it was done in cities KNOWN to have a high prevalence of HIV.

second, it was done with only a specific group within those cities. it focused on men who frequented gay clubs and bars, which draw a culture of casual sex that doesn't permeate the gay community as a whole.

the study purposely done to find the highest numbers, and it was stated in the link above "the results are not representative of all MSM" (emphasis added).

I'm not gay but I was bared from blood donation for several years because I lived with some who had Hep C. Yeas & several tests later I'm now allowed again. Even before I was bared I didn't look down on others for not donating.

where I live in Hungary, before donating blood, we have to fill out a questionare about risk factors like tattoos,piercings, etc and ofcourse sexual orientation. but there's one row asking if you had unprotected sex in the last 3 months. This question basically makes the sexual prejudice unnecessary, if everybody answers honestly.

This. It's fine and dandy to say you support the ban because of the risk factor, but after 3 months the ability to detect HIV increases dramatically. Having a ban on a demographic for life is just plain discrimination.

You think they haven't studied the new policy before applying it? Of course they have and other countries have implemented it too and guess what, people didn't start catching HIV everywhere. Turns out the previous policy was extreme and yes, discriminatory. People should stop being so afraid of "the gays".

A 2010 study done in Australia has shown that there are no evidence of a significantly increased risk of transfusion-transmitted human immunodeficiency virus infection subsequent to implementing a 12-month deferral for MSM. A life ban just didn't make sense especially when you consider that there's a shortage of blood donors.

The blood donation service in the UK is constantly barraging me with letters saying they are low on blood and need new donors (though I already donate).

Banning a whole demographic like this hurts the blood service too. Obviously the blood needs to be safe, but I don't think the outright ban was the right way to go. The new system gets rid of the potentially very unsafe blood, i.e. the blood with undetectable infections, while allowing for a lot more safe blood to enter the system.

They already test every donation so as long as any infections in the blood are detectable, as they apparently are after 1 year, then the "gay blood" is no more dangerous that the "straight blood".

It was pointed out above that donated blood is only good for 42 days. That leaves a 138 day window wherein the donor could have been infected and it would not show up on tests of the donated blood. And that's if they test it the day it's going to be thrown out. Which I doubt is how it's done.

I'm bisexual, and -- yes, prefiltering makes sense. But on the other hand, when I walk past posters imploring me to give blood, I don't feel happy. When my friends are going as a gang to give blood and I can't come, I don't feel happy. But I obviously can't honestly argue against it if it statistically means people will die of HIV. But still I feel very glad that apparently screenings have improved to the point that the lifetime ban can be lifted.

All blood should be tested (isn't it already?). There are tons of married guys out there having gay sex on the side and they sure as hell aren't going to admit to living on the down low. So who cares what group they are from or say they are from?

First of all "this ban" was in the UK, not the US and there are differences. Secondly, it's fine to "go with the math," and I agree with most of your point, but this ban was disproportionate - a lifetime ban, versus a year ban for intravenous drug users? It made it seem like gay men are far and away the highest risk group, when they are in fact one of several high risk groups in the UK (sub-Saharan African descent, intravenous drug users, and, increasingly, all heterosexuals who have sex without protection).

The ban simply made no medical sense and was both needlessly wasting donation opportunities and needlessly stigmatising gay people. So it's great that it's been dropped, especially in favour of the more sensible regulation of 1 year since possible point of infection. It would be great for gay men to stop being a high-risk group and be able to give blood regardless of sexual activity, but we're not there yet and this decision reflects that.

I think rather than an outright ban they could change their screening factors. If someone had a gay experience 10 years ago, and has tested negative multiple times, there is no reason they shouldn't be able to donate. Excluding homosexuals on dry spells or in monogamous relationships who have been tested just doesn't make sense.

From January 1, 1980, through December 31, 1996, you spent (visited or lived) a cumulative time of 3 months or more, in the United Kingdom (UK), or
From January 1, 1980, to present, you had a blood transfusion in any country(ies) in the (UK). The UK includes any of the countries listed below."

I have been blood transfused and I am now banned from transfusing my own blood (at least in my country). I just see this as a way to have a higher quality in the blood that is donated and I think that it is the right way to see this.

Just put yourself in the situation of someone needing a blood transfer. Would you agree to have a slightly higher risk of getting an STD so that some people do not feel a very minor discrimination?

In many countries (mine included) there is a great shortage of blood for transfusions, so much so that, there are surgeries that do not take place because of the shortage. An excessive limitation of the blood donation pool also hurts patients, not just those discriminated against.

Judging by some of the comments I've read, I suspect that not everybody realises that you don't get paid to give blood in the UK - not ever.
Not strictly relevant to the original post, but some of the comments seem to assume a motive for giving blood that can't exist in the UK.

We're talking about the UK here. Over half of HIV cases were the result of Heterosexual sex. Gay men are also more likely, given the stigma attached, to have regular HIV checks and the change in law clearly adds that gay men giving blood should refrain from sex for at least a year before donating blood.

Opinions here seem to suggest giving blood is mandatory and you can choose who you get your blood off. I hate to remind people of the swathes of married men who have unprotected sex with other men and then carry out the civil duty expected of a family man by donating their blood.

A one year deferral. We were discussing this last month during my blood bank rotation. The pathologist said, "I'm all for this one year deferral thing but can you imagine asking a gay person to stop having sex with his boyfriend for a year just so he can donate blood? Also, donating blood is not a human right."

The question mark means you're passing a parameter to the script that creates the page. In this case, the value "true" for the parameter "print" causes the script to format the page in a certain way. Most likely, the script is formatting the page to that it prints nicely on most printers. (If you're passing more than one parameter, they are separated by ampersands. Also, special characters like spaces are encoded with codes that begin with a percent.)

This parameter may or may not work on other sites, depending on how they coded their page formatting scripts.

Surely the discrimination should be in regards to life style of the individual, not the individual's membership of a sub-group. I'd much rather have blood from a monogamous homosexual than a promiscuous heterosexual. A few simple questions to assess the amount of risk a person has been subjected to, including sexual history and drug use should suffice for telling who's able to give blood. You're never going to have a method that's 100% full proof and blanket bans on sub-groups aren't a fail safe method and clearly will allow risky people from other sub-groups to get through the net.

You overestimate the honesty of people. No one wants to call them selves a slut. You can't base it off of there lifestyle because there is no way to check if it is true. And because of the high aids rate in the homosexual community, it if much more logical to ban gays in general than asking " so exactly how many dudes have you nailed?"

Don't want to be a sexual-word-definition Nazi, but wasn't the ban on men who have had sex with men (MSM), not gay and bisexual men? You can be attracted to men but if you haven't had sex with one then you would still have been able to donate blood. Anyway, you can always just lie on the form. :P

Headline is misleading. Ban was on men who had sex with other men. Had nothing to do with sexual orientation. If you were a virgin, celibate, or whatever and homosexual you COULD donate. That's why it's called MSM: Men who have had sex with men.

My views on gay rights and other things are irrelevant. All I know is that I have -O blood, meaning that if I was ever in need of blood, I'd be in trouble, because not a lot of people have that blood type. I honestly wouldn't give whose blood it was, as long as it was disease free. I think the modification of this ban to allow more people to give blood is fantastic. It's stupid to not let people give blood if they have the capacity to.

The rules in the UK have not been changed owing to pressure from proponents of gay rights. Instead the changes have firm scientific backing via the following logic:

There is a 3-6 month window after infection during which HIV is not necessarily detectable in the blood.

All donated blood in the UK is tested for HIV.

The new rules in the UK state that MSM can donate 12 months or more after their last sexual encounter.

Therefore, as outlined in the article, the risk of contaminating the blood supply is not increased by accepting donations from this demographic with the restrictions in place.

It does not matter whether or not gay men in the UK are at a statistically higher risk of HIV than other demographics, if they cannot donate during the window where HIV would not show up in a blood test.

I'm just going to point out something that I have known for years and is the main reason I think this ban on MSMs is a double standard: young black women have similar, if not higher, risk factors than MSMs. This is taken from the CDC's HIV/AIDS factsheet:

Heterosexual transmission.
Young women, especially those of minority races or ethnicities, are increasingly at risk for HIV infection through heterosexual contact. According to data from a CDC study of HIV prevalence among disadvantaged youth during the early to mid-1990s, the rate of HIV prevalence among young women aged 16–21 was 50% higher than the rate among young men in that age group [5]. African American women in this study were 7 times as likely as white women and 8 times as likely as Hispanic women to be HIV-positive. Young women are at risk for sexually transmitted HIV for several reasons, including biologic vulnerability, lack of recognition of their partners’ risk factors, inequality in relationships, and having sex with older men who are more likely to be infected with HIV.

MSM.
Young MSM are at high risk for HIV infection, but their risk factors and the prevention barriers they face differ from those of persons who become infected through heterosexual contact. According to a CDC study of 5,589 MSM, 55% of young men (aged 15–22) did not let other people know they were sexually attracted to men [6]. MSM who do not disclose their sexual orientation are less likely to seek HIV testing, so if they become infected, they are less likely to know it. Further, because MSM who do not disclose their sexual orientation are likely to have 1 or more female sex partners, MSM who become infected may transmit the virus to women as well as to men. In a small study of African American MSM college students and nonstudents in North Carolina, the participants had sexual risk factors for HIV infection, and 20% had a female sex partner during the preceding 12 months [7].

So, if what the CDC says is true, then shouldn't young black women also be banned from giving blood? Or would that make for too much bad press?

I'm gay and selfish, so I secretly appreciate the ban because it means I'm entitled to receive blood (should I need to) without being expected--or even allowed--to donate in return. I'm okay with getting shots, but the whole idea of them drawing that much blood from my body makes me squeamish; I'm glad I won't have to go through it, in the same way that men are glad they won't have to go into labor in order to have a biological child.

It's a bit like DADT. Yes, it was discriminatory and of course I'm glad it's gone, but at the same time, there goes my get-out-of-draft-free card.

As a gay guy I disagree with lifting the ban. This ban was in place for very good reasons. Gay people are more likely to have HIV and they're also more likely to have it and not even know due to lack of testing and the three month time window for detection. I have not heard any good reason for lifting the ban. It just seems to be mainly a mentality where straight people can do it so we as gay people should be able to do it as well.

The ban has not been completely lifted, if you have had sex with another man within the past year you still cannot donate. That should be enough time for HIV to show up in the testing they do after you donate. Thank you for your rationality though.

In practice you are not allowed to give blood in sweden or norway if you as a man had sex with other men. In sweden if you had sex with someone who recently had a tattoo or piercing you are not allowed to give blood. I was banned from donating blood in Sweden simply because I'd spent more than 6 months integrated time in England as part of the bse scare. If they simply tested all blood and only banned infected people regardless of sexual orientation it would be fairer and safer.

They would take the blood of a bum off the streets, reeking of cheeseburgers and booze, before they took the blood of a gay man. Even though anyone, gay or straight, male or female, rich or poor, can have HIV.

I can understand a ban for promiscuous people, but that should not be limited to homosexuals. A straight guy who picks girls up at the bar every week is also likely to have diseases carried in the blood (as are the girls).

I'm gay, but don't have sex with anybody but my partner. We've been together for 7 years and don't have any blood carried diseases. Why am I ineligible, while the guy mentioned earlier, or some girl who fucks a football team, is eligible?

I don't care if blood collectors discriminate based on risky behaviour, but banning entire groups of people based on sexual orientation is wrong.

Equal rights n all but it has been statistically proved the gay men are vastly more likely to have HIV. I agree with the ban. Yes, helping people is great giving blood but giving HIV would be one of the worst things you could do. It is in the governments and society's best interest to minimize the probability of contracting it.

If an unknowing carrier tries to donate blood, they're told that they have HIV after the collector screens the blood.. That would help to stop the spread of the disease. Isn't getting more blood AND helping to stop the spread of HIV a worthy cause?